« God, Guns and Gays: Testing the Conventional Wisdom About the 2004 Election | Main | Economic Policy Institute Economist Says Economic Issues Still Potent Vote-Getter »

The Spatial Distribution of Bush's Vote Gains

Between 2000 and 2004, there was a net shift of about 4 million votes in Bush's direction. On November 9, I posted a brief analysis of where Bush's vote gains came from by state. I now have had a chance to conduct some analysis of the county-level results from 2004 and they provide some very intriguing insights into the spatial distribution of Bush's vote gains. These insights challenge the conventional wisdom about where Bush's vote gains came from and appear to contradict the exit poll's findings from this year about the spatial distribution of Bush's gains.

First, my analysis finds that only about a quarter of Bush's net vote gains from 2000 to 2004 came from the nation's "ideopolises" (see this piece in Blueprint magazine for an explanation of the term) and three-quarters--the vast majority--came from less technically advanced metro areas and from rural areas.

Second, my analysis shows that Bush made gains across the board (sometimes less, sometimes more than the conventional wisdom has indicated) when you examine counties sorted into 10 categories, going from most urban to most rural. (This analysis uses the rural-urban continuum codes developed by Calvin Beale of the USDA's Economic Research Service.)

Starting with the most urban counties, those that are central counties of large (1 million or more) metro areas, Bush improved his vote margin by 2.4 percentage points (i.e., he narrowed his margin of loss to about 55-44). His gains in these areas accounted for about 19 percent of his total net vote gain.

In fringe or exurban counties of these large metro areas, Bush improved his winning margin by 6.7 points (to 62-38). But because these exurban areas contain far fewer people than the central counties, Bush received only 13 percent of his vote gains from these counties.

More important to Bush's vote gains were medium-sized metro areas (250,000 to a million in population), where he improved his winning margin by 3.5 points (about the national average). But because of the large number of people in medium-sized metro areas, Bush received over a quarter (26 percent) of his net vote gain from these counties.

In small metro areas (less than 250,000 population), Bush improved his margin by 2.4 points and received about 8 percent of his net vote gain.

Turning to nonmetro counties, which are typically considered "rural" and which have urban concentrations that range from a high of 50,000 a low of under 2,500, Bush did the best in nonmetro counties that are adjacent to a metro area and have an urban population of between 2,500 and 20,000. In these counties, he improved his margin by 6.4 points and received 15 percent of his overall net vote gain.

In the other five types of rural counties (see the rural-urban continuum codes cited above), Bush improved his margin by from 2.2 to 4.2 points and--putting all these other rural counties together--received 18 percent of his net vote gain.

How do these findings match up with the exit poll findings on Bush's performance in different types of areas? Not very well at all.

Consider this: the exit polls say that Bush's margin was compressed both in their "rural areas" category (shrinking by 3 points) and in their other nonmetro category, "cities and towns, 10,000 to 50,000 population" (shrinking by an astonishing 19 points, from a 21 point to a 2 point margin).

It's very hard to square this with the findings cited above on Bush's gains in all categories of nonmetro counties, from the most rural to the least.

Or consider this: the exit polls say that Bush improved his margin by an incredible 24 points (going from a 71-26 deficit to 60-39) in "cities of over 500,000" population and improved by an almost as stunning 17 points (going from a 57-40 deficit to dead-even) in "cities and towns, 50,000 to 500,000 in population". But a glance at the findings above for the different metro categories fails to find anything even remotely consistent with these shifts.

While the exit polls use different categories (cities of different sizes, suburbs, etc.) that are not county-based, it would take a hell of a story to reconcile these findings by pointing to the differences between categories.

So put a big question mark by those exit poll spatial findings. They just don't square with analysis of the actual votes that were cast and where Bush made his gains.

Much more of this county-based analysis to come! I'm just getting started and will shortly be taking a look at some of the more interesting states in '04 election.

Comments

Similar analysis in CommonWealth site, at:

http://www.massinc.org/commonwealth/new_map_exclusive/post_election_update_2004.html

Ten regional blocks as sets of counties. Basically the same verdict, summarized as:

In winning re-election, President Bush collected electoral votes in Big River and popular votes in Northeast Corridor, while Sen. Kerry won the new-votes sweepstakes only in Upper Coasts and Great Lakes

Has anyone seen this by Zogby???


Zogby: "I smell a rat".


http://www.zogby.com/soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=10398

Zogby says that

http://www.zogby.com/soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=10398

is a hoax (my word). He says he did not write it and does not who who "Colin Shea" is and he has no connection with the Zogby org.

Ruy, I don't want to be simplistic,but you and John Judis sort of cut to the chase:

A 2004 PROJECTION
Bush’s support among white working class voters, who were the bulwark of the Reagan coalition and drove the Republican victories in 2000 and 2002, has eroded quite dramatically due to the continued under-performance of the economy and, especially, disaffection with the Iraq war. The Republicans are thoroughly dependent on carrying white working class voters by large margins, especially the white working class elite, those with some college. The war probably is undermining his support among the white working class, perhaps his most crucial voting bloc.
summarized from John B. Judis and Ruy Teixeira, “White Flight: Bush Loses His Base,” New Republic, July 23, 2004


The 2004 RESULT
Democrats' falloff among whites appears to have been concentrated almost entirely among white women, rather than white men. This year, Bush carried white men by 25 points (62-37), only a point more than his 24 point margin in 2000 (60-36). In contrast, he carried white women by 11 points (55-44), a big improvement over the single point (49-48) by which he carried this group in 2000.
summarized from the Emerging Democratic Majority Weblog, November 9, 2004

This leaves us with: what happened and/or what didn’t happen in relationship to the white working class voters.

Re: Posting by Big Dog. I read the article. Hey Ruy, would you mind taking a look at this? If this is true, in any way, we don't have an 'accidental president' we have a coup.

Can't come out of the closet periodically and expect the "media" to get our message out. What we need is our own Karl Rove, Fox network, and a real Democratic candidate. Run a democrat as a Republican, and the real Republican will win every time. Republicans have defined "liberal" as bad, and Democrats let them get away with it.

How did Arabs and Muslims vote in 2004? In 2000 they were for Bush.

The piece on the spatial distribution of Bush's gains
BEGS for an accompanying map!